SHIVGANGA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PATGAON THR. ITS SECRETARYversusNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

                                                                                   909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4686 OF 2026
          Digitally
          signed by    Shivganga Ayurvedic Medical College and Research          … Petitioner
          UDAY
UDAY      SHIVAJI      Centre, Patgaon Thr. Its Secretary
SHIVAJI   JAGTAP
JAGTAP    Date:
          2026.09.24
          10:19:23
          +0530
                                        Vs.
                       National Commission For Indian System Of Medicine … Respondents
                       Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.
                                                       ………….
                       Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w Ruturaj P. Pawar for the Petitioner
                       Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavale for Respondent No.1
                       Ms. Divya Arvind Pawar for Respondent No.3 – UOI.
                                                       ………….
                                                         CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                                         DATE       : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                       FINAL ORDER :

                       .        Heard both sides.

                       2.       Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

                       parties. Considering exigency in the matter, taken up for final disposal.

                       3.       The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 04.09.2026 as well

                       as 16.09.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 - board thereby

                       cumulatively inflicting following penalties:-

                       (i)      Fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only)
                       (ii)     Withholding of teacher’s code of 19 faculties.
                       (iii)    Denying participation in the admission process for the Aademic
                                Year 2026-27.


                       Uday S. Jagtap                      1 of 9
                                                            909-WP-4686-2026=.doc




4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chetan Patil has canvassed

the following submissions :-

(i)      The order dated 04.09.2026 is against the timeline prescribed by

Regulation 55 (7).

(ii)     The action of imposition of fine and the penalties are extremely

arbitrary, disproportionate and harsh.

(iii)    The respondent no.2 – board, who heard the petitioner did not

pass the impugned orders.        Those are passed by respondent no.1 –

Commission, which vitiates the impugned action.

(iv)     The consequential order dated 16.09.2026 is against the principles

of natural justice and in violation of Regulation 55(14).

(v)      Lastly, no reasons are assigned for drastic action and multiple

penalties.


5.       Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. Ganbavale would submit that

though the respondent no.2 heard the petitioner, after giving adequate

opportunity passed the impugned orders. It is not the respondent no.1 –

Commission passed the orders. It is further submitted that the matter

involves disputed questions of facts and the expert body after considering

the inspection report has passed the impugned orders finding that 19


Uday S. Jagtap                     2 of 9
                                                         909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



faculties were not present. It is further submitted that neither CCTV

footage nor AEBAS were made available to ascertain the attendance of

the faculties.   There are other serious shortfalls noted by the inspecting

team and the board.     Adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the

petitioner and there is no provision of extending any opportunity before

imposing the penalty.

6.       There is no controversy that the petitioner – college has been

granted permission to run Ayurvedic college from the Academic Year

2025-26 with intake capacity of 200 students, comprising of two classes.

Accordingly, 190 students took admission in the first year and out of

them approximately 85 students will be going in the second year. The

college has a multi-storied building and facilities for imparting training

as well as hospital in the premises covered over 7 acres. It is situated at

the rural area at Patgaon, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli. It is newly started

college which has faced the impugned action on the basis of inspection

conducted on 27.03.2026.

7.       The parties are unanimous that the admission process for the

Academic Year 2026-27 has commenced and programme to that effect is

placed on record in the paper-book at page 274.      The process is said to

have been commenced from 25.08.2026.           Its first round commenced




Uday S. Jagtap                     3 of 9
                                                         909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



from 09.09.2026 and concluded on 13.09.2026. The second round will

be commencing from 25.09.2026.          Due to one of the penalties, the

petitioner is prevented from admitting the students in the present

academic year.     The second round and third round are still available to

enable the petitioner to admit the students, if the penalty imposed

against them is revoked.

8.       This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, has self imposed restrictions for going into the

disputed questions of facts. The inspecting team of the respondents

visited the college and submitted report. The notice was given to the

petitioner - college on 09.04.2026 seeking explanation as well as granting

time to cure the shortfalls. It is recorded in the report as well as in the

impugned order that 19 faculties were absent but shown to have been

present on papers.

9.       I have been taken through the record by learned counsel Mr.

Chetan Patil to indicate that out of 19 faculties, 11 are earmarked for the

first year in BAMS. Two faculties namely; Sachin Patil and Dadasaheb

Shinde appear to be present but still shown absent.     It must be noticed

that the petitioner did not provide the CCTV footage to the inspecting

team or the respondents so as to verify the attendance of the staff,




Uday S. Jagtap                     4 of 9
                                                          909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



infrastructure and the facilities. The AEBAS system is stated to be out of

order for few days preceding the visit.      This is the arena of disputed

questions of facts and adjudication is not possible for the first time in the

High Court.

10.      The timeline is provided by Rule 55 Sub-Rule (7) for rendering the

decision which appears to have been flouted in the present case. Both

the impugned orders reflect that decision is rendered by the respondent

no.2 – board.     The petitioner is heard by the board and the decision is

taken by the board. Therefore, I find substance in the submission of Mr.

Ganbavale that the authority who heard the petitioner rendered the

decision.

11.      The respondent no.2 – board imposed multiple penalties of

imposing fine of Rs. 100,00,000/-, withholding of teacher’s code for 19

faculties and preventing the petitioner from admitting the students. I

find merit in the submission of the petitioner that the penalties are

extremely drastic and disproportionate. The respondents – authorities

overlooked the plight of the students who are admitted in the last year

and who would be going in the second year. Withholding of teacher’s

code would have serious repercussions on them.




Uday S. Jagtap                     5 of 9
                                                            909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



12.      I find that there are some mitigating circumstances for the

petitioner. The college in question has been started one year back. It is

not a case of frequent defiance of the norms and regulations.                The

deficiencies are curable.    The petitioner is having infrastructure and the

facilities for imparting the education. It would be most impracticable to

direct it to close down the college. Considering huge investment and the

public interest, I propose to adopt the lenient approach in imposing lesser

punishment or finding out via media so that the college could be run. It

is made clear that the petitioner is not absolve from observing the norms

and any defiance in future would not be tolerated.

13.      In both the impugned orders deficiencies are indicated. In the last

impugned order, time upto 31.12.2026 has been stipulated to remove the

shortfalls which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

         “9) The following requirements must be fulfilled and the
         compliance report must reach the Board by 31 st December,
         2026 to be considered for the issuance of permission for the
         academic session 2027-28 :-
         (i)     All the requirements under the provisions of the NCISM
         Act, 2020 and relevant Regulations made thereunder should be
         fulfilled
         (ii) All the requirements of Minimum Standard of
         infrastructure and teaching & training facilities as specified in
         NCISM (Minimum essential standards, assessment and rating
         for undergraduate Ayurveda colleges and attached teaching
         hospitals) Regulations, 2024.
         iii)    All the requirements of the National Commission for


Uday S. Jagtap                      6 of 9
                                                          909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



         Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards                  of
         Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations-2022.”


14.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has made candid statement on

instructions of his client that it undertakes to remove the deficiencies

within stipulated period. The statement can be accepted. It would be

open for the respondents to conduct inspection or verification as is

permissible in law.

15.      Both counsel have made rival submissions regarding imposition of

penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.      Regulation 71, Sub Rule (3) provides for

imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.         I have already

recorded that no reasons are assigned for imposing maximum penalty.

This Court is not having expertise for determining the quantum of

punishment.       In this regard, learned counsel Mr. Ganbavale appearing

for the respondent has fairly conceded that if the representation is made

to the respondent no.2 - board in respect of the quantum of the penalty,

the decision would be taken on its own merits.

16.      The petitioner cannot be exonerated for the lapses. It is equitable

to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within a

period of two weeks to the respondents.           Learned counsel for the

petitioner is ready to make the representation in respect of the quantum

of penalty.


Uday S. Jagtap                      7 of 9
                                                            909-WP-4686-2026=.doc




17.      In that view of the matter, I propose to pass the following order:-

                                    ORDER

(A)      Both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and

substituted by following order :-

(i)      The petitioner shall pay penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- to the

respondent no.1 – Commission within a period of two weeks. No further

time shall be granted.

(ii)     The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach respondent no.2 –

board seeking review of monetary penalty. The decision shall be taken in

accordance with law.

(iii)    The petitioner shall remove the deficiencies or the shortfall which

are referred above or if so indicated independently by the respondent

authorities to the petitioner by 31.12.2026.          The compliance report

thereof shall be submitted to the respondents.

(iv)     The respondents shall be at liberty to inspect / verify the petitioner

college as well as consider the compliance report.

(v)      The petitioner is permitted to participate in further round of

admission process and to have their teachers code restored for 19




Uday S. Jagtap                       8 of 9
                                                          909-WP-4686-2026=.doc



faculties, subject to compliance of above order and the norms or the

regulation operating in the field.


18.      Needless to mention that the above referred observations and

findings are qua the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.




                                              ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )




Uday S. Jagtap                       9 of 9